DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparison Report on CS and PAVA Sprays

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparison Report on CS and PAVA Sprays Comparison report on CS and PAVA Sprays Publication Number: 24/14 Management Summary This report has been compiled at the request of the National Policing Lead on Self Defence Arrest and Restraint (SDAR) to provide information on the similarities and differences between CS and PAVA sprays. It is based on a previous comparative study published in 20041, which reviewed the two approved chemical irritant solutions that were available at the time: CS in MIBK and PAVA in 50% aqueous ethanol (referred to in this document as PAVA 1). Since the publication of the 2004 review, a new solvent formulation for PAVA has been approved: PAVA in monopropylene glycol, ethanol and water (referred to in this document as PAVA 2). The report details the technical differences between all three approved chemical irritant solutions, and compares the operational experience of officers using the sprays via information collected from officers who have used at least two of the approved sprays. Officers were asked to give a direct comparison from their experience; therefore the data collected are purely subjective and opinion‐based. The overarching theme discussed by officers when comparing CS and PAVA sprays was cross contamination of CS sprays compared with the accuracy required to use PAVA sprays. Both had benefits and disadvantages which have been described in this document. The other significant difference between the sprays is their flammability, which may be a consideration when assessing the risks when deploying the sprays with Taser; CS and PAVA 1 are flammable, PAVA 2 is non‐flammable. It is intentional that this report does not contain a conclusion. The Centre for Applied Science and Technology (CAST) recognise that there are benefits and disadvantages of each spray and, as forces have different operational needs, it is better that the decision regarding which chemical irritant spray to deploy is made locally rather than as a national standard. It is conceivable that there may be a place for both within certain forces for use in different operational situations. 1 Comparison of CS and PAVA: Operational and Toxicological Aspects. Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 History of chemical irritants for UK Police ..................................................................................................4 1.2 Comparative studies ..................................................................................................................................5 1.3 Review of 2004 study ................................................................................................................................5 2. Technical Aspects ........................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Chemical composition ...............................................................................................................................6 2.2 Discharge rate ...........................................................................................................................................7 2.3 Flammability .............................................................................................................................................7 2.4 Compatibility with other police equipment ...............................................................................................8 3. Operational Aspects: Questionnaire Responses ............................................................................. 9 4. Summary of Differences Between Sprays..................................................................................... 15 5. Statements from the Committees on Toxicity, Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment ................................................................................. 17 6. Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 20 7. Glossary ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix A ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix B ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix C ......................................................................................................................................... 25 3 Comparison Report on CS and PAVA sprays 1. Introduction 1.1 History of chemical irritants for UK Police In 1994 CAST (then PSDB) were requested to identify a chemical irritant spray for police use, to meet the Police Operational Requirement. Opinion at the time favoured the use of Oleoresin Capsicum (OC, commonly referred to as pepper spray) as it was already in use in the United States and some other countries. CAST consulted internationally recognised experts in the field of medicine, pathology and toxicology to establish the suitability of OC from a toxicological point of view. It soon became apparent that information on the toxicological profile of OC was lacking. Conversely, the amount of toxicological information on CS was vast; indeed the Department of Health advised that “CS was thoroughly tested to the same standards as those to which new drugs are subjected and its properties are well understood”. A shift in emphasis from OC to CS resulted. This culminated in the then Home Secretary giving his full support to the issue of a CS‐based irritant spray in August 1996 following a successful six‐ month trial. The formulation finally adopted had been used in France since 1984 and comprised a 5% solution of CS in the solvent methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK). CS was adopted as standard issue to routine patrol officers by all but three forces in England and Wales. Although deploying CS spray, Hertfordshire Constabulary were independently pursuing the possibility of using an alternative irritant spray based on pelargonic acid vanillylamide or PAVA. PAVA is a synthetic product based on one of the active components of OC. The advantage of PAVA over OC was that it is a single compound which makes its toxicological profile easier to assess. Sussex Police started a pilot trial with PAVA in April 2001. In May 2002 the information available on PAVA (0.3% PAVA in a solvent of 50% aqueous ethanol) was referred to the Department of Health Independent Committees on Toxicity, Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. The same Committees had produced a statement on the health effects of CS spray in 1999 with the overall conclusion that “the available data did not, in general, raise concerns regarding the health effects of CS itself”. When the Committee produced a statement on PAVA in 2002 they recommended further work as they could not make an assessment on the health effects using the available data. These data were collected over the next two years and the Committee reconsidered PAVA in September 2004 concluding “the available information, both from the toxicity data in experimental studies, and experience in use, indicates that the low exposures arising from the use of PAVA incapacitant spray would not be expected to be associated with any significant adverse health effects”. Following ministerial support for the use of PAVA, chief officers now had a choice of chemical irritant spray. In 2007 the Committee commented on the proposal for the reformulation of PAVA spray (marketed as Captor 2 or Captor II). This comprised 0.3% PAVA in monopropylene glycol, ethanol and water. The Committee concluded that “the information submitted on the toxicological risk assessment of Captor II in relation to direct and indirect exposure, provided adequate reassurance that the risk was lower than 4 Comparison Report on CS and PAVA sprays for the previous formulation”. All three irritant solutions are now approved for use in chemical irritant spray devices. The Committee Statements on all three solutions have been summarised in Section 5 and reproduced in the appendices. In order to avoid confusion with the term ‘incapacitant’ which is used to describe tranquillisers and other similar drugs in the Chemical Weapons Convention the term ‘Chemical Irritant’ will be used to refer to CS and PAVA in this report. 1.2 Comparative studies CAST produced the first comparative study of CS and PAVA sprays in 2004. This focused on operational aspects, based on discussions with officers who had used both CS and PAVA sprays from the only force at the time that had issued both sprays (North Wales). This was a subjective assessment as there are many factors that may influence the opinion of each spray and its effectiveness; therefore the information presented did not focus on statistics but what the officers thought. The report also included the statements from the Independent Committees on Toxicity, Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. 1.3 Review of 2004 study This report focuses primarily on the technical differences between the three approved solutions as well as comparisons of operational experience from officers who have used at least two of the three solutions. Many more forces are now using PAVA sprays and there is
Load more

Recommended publications
  • After Care of Those Who Have Been Exposed to PAVA (Captor) Spray Or Post Deployment of ‘Taser’ Device
    Document level: Trustwide (TW) Code: CP39 Issue number: 3 After care of those who have been exposed to PAVA (Captor) spray or post deployment of ‘taser’ device Lead executive Director of Nursing Therapies Patient Partnership Author and contact number Safety and Security Lead – 01244 397 618 Type of document Policy Target audience All inpatient staff The procedure is written in the event of CS Gas being used within Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (CWP). It Document purpose provides guidance on the aftercare of those who have been affected by a CS contaminant. Document consultation Emergency Planning Sub Committee (EPSC) Approving meeting Patient Safety and Effectiveness Sub Committee 17-Feb-11 Ratification Document Quality Group (DQG) 8-Sep-11 Original issue date Apr-03 Implementation date Sep-11 Review date Sep-16 HR6 Trust-wide learning and development requirements including the training needs analysis (TNA) CWP documents to be read GR1 Incident reporting and management policy in conjunction with GR8 Security policy CP6 The management of violence and aggression (incorporating verbal threat to staff and offensive weapons) Training requirements There are no specific training requirements for this document. Financial resource No implications Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) Initial assessment Yes/No Comments Does this document affect one group less or more favourably than another on the basis of: Race No Ethnic origins (including gypsies and travellers) No Nationality No Gender No Culture No Religion or belief
    [Show full text]
  • Streptococcus Pneumoniae
    INVESTIGATIONS TO IRON LIMITATION IN STREPTOCOCCUS PNEUMONIAE I n a u g u r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. nat.) der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Greifswald vorgelegt von Juliane Hoyer geboren am 18.08.1988 in Potsdam Greifswald, den 18.12.2018 Dekan: Prof. Dr. Werner Weitschies 1. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Dörte Becher 2. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Jan Maarten van Dijl Tag der Promotion: 25.04.2019 Table of contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of contents ...................................................................................................................................................... I Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................................... V 1. Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Zusammenfassung .......................................................................................................................................... 3 3. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1. Streptococcus pneumoniae ................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.1. Historical and general
    [Show full text]
  • 'Response to the Director-General's Request
    OPCW Scientific Advisory Board Twenty-Fifth Session SAB-25/WP.1 27 – 31 March 2017 27 March 2017 ENGLISH only RESPONSE TO THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL'S REQUEST TO THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD TO PROVIDE CONSIDERATION ON WHICH RIOT CONTROL AGENTS ARE SUBJECT TO DECLARATION UNDER THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION 1. Response to the Director-General’s Request to the Scientific Advisory Board to Consider Which Riot Control Agents are Subject to Declaration Under the Chemical Weapons Convention (hereinafter “the Convention”). Annex: Response to the Director-General’s Request to the Scientific Advisory Board to Consider Which Riot Control Agents are Subject to Declaration Under the Chemical Weapons Convention. CS-2017-0268(E) distributed 27/03/2017 *CS-2017-0268.E* SAB-25/WP.1 Annex page 2 Annex RESPONSE TO THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL’S REQUEST TO THE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD TO CONSIDER WHICH RIOT CONTROL AGENTS ARE SUBJECT TO DECLARATION UNDER THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report provides advice from the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) on which riot control agents (RCAs) would be subject to declaration under the Convention in response to a request by the Director-General at the Board’s Twentieth Session in June 2013 [1]. The request appears in Appendix 1. 1.2 The SAB considered a list of 59 chemicals that included the 14 chemicals declared as RCAs since entry into force of the Convention; chemicals identified as potential RCAs from a list of “riot control agents and old/abandoned chemical weapons” to be considered for inclusion in the OPCW Chemical Agent Database (OCAD) that had been drafted by the SAB’s Temporary Working Group (TWG) on Analytical Procedures in 2001 (Appendix 2) [2]; an initial survey conducted by the Technical Secretariat in 2013 of RCAs that have been researched or are available for purchase, beyond those that are already declared; and 12 additional chemicals recognised by the SAB as having potential RCA applications.
    [Show full text]
  • 20 2200 Attachment 6
    Module 10 Irritant Sprays OPERATIONAL SAFETY TRAINING OFFICIAL Module 10 Irritant Sprays Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Irritant Spray Theory Section 3: Irritant Spray Techniques Aims: Section 2: To provide officers/staff with training in the theory and techniques included within the irritant spray Irritant Spray Theory section of the programme. Officers/staff should bear in mind that not all subjects are affected by irritant spray, therefore, Learning Outcomes: they should maintain alert throughout to the Officers/staff will be able to: potential for it not working. • Explain the theory associated The information contained in this module with irritant spray is designed to provide officers/staff with an overarching, generic approach to the use of irritant spray. The guidance provided is for the • Demonstrate the techniques included benefit of officers/staff that may be required to within the irritant spray programme use irritant spray. Section 1 - Introduction The guidance should not be viewed in isolation, but seen as the guiding principles and Officers are reminded that under S.5 of fundamental approach, underpinning the specific the Firearms Act 1968 it is classified as a training provided to all officers/staff issued with firearm. irritant spray. The high line carry position of the irritant spray is a tactical communication and can provide The use of irritant spray should be seen in the a visual presentation and creates a unique context of the National Decision Model as a psychological effect on the subject, thus whole and its use viewed as one of the many affording the officer/staff a tactical advantage. tactical options that may be available to an Officer/staff presence and bearing are important officer/staff in the resolution of an incident.
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacologic Characterization of JNJ-42226314, [1-(4-Fluorophenyl
    Supplemental material to this article can be found at: http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/suppl/2019/12/09/jpet.119.262139.DC1 1521-0103/372/3/339–353$35.00 https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.119.262139 THE JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS J Pharmacol Exp Ther 372:339–353, March 2020 Copyright ª 2020 by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Pharmacologic Characterization of JNJ-42226314, [1-(4-Fluorophenyl)indol-5-yl]-[3-[4-(thiazole-2-carbonyl) piperazin-1-yl]azetidin-1-yl]methanone, a Reversible, Selective, and Potent Monoacylglycerol Lipase Inhibitor s Ryan M. Wyatt, Ian Fraser, Natalie Welty, Brian Lord, Michelle Wennerholm, Steven Sutton, Michael K. Ameriks, Christine Dugovic, Sujin Yun, Allison White, Leslie Nguyen, Tatiana Koudriakova, Gaochao Tian, Javier Suarez, Lawrence Szewczuk, William Bonnette, Kay Ahn, Brahma Ghosh, Christopher M. Flores, Peter J. Connolly, Downloaded from Bin Zhu, Mark J. Macielag, Michael R. Brandt, Kristen Chevalier, Sui-Po Zhang, Timothy Lovenberg, and Pascal Bonaventure Janssen Research & Development, LLC, San Diego, California Received August 16, 2019; accepted December 1, 2019 jpet.aspetjournals.org ABSTRACT The serine hydrolase monoacylglycerol lipase (MAGL) is the rate- respectively. Though 30 mg/kg induced hippocampal synaptic limiting enzyme responsible for the degradation of the endo- depression, altered sleep onset, and decreased electroencephalo- cannabinoid 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) into arachidonic acid gram gamma power, 3 mg/kg still provided approximately 80% en- and glycerol. Inhibition of 2-AG degradation leads to elevation of zyme occupancy, significantly increased 2-AG and norepinephrine 2-AG, the most abundant endogenous agonist of the cannabi- levels, and produced neuropathic antinociception without synaptic at ASPET Journals on September 24, 2021 noid receptors (CBs) CB1 and CB2.
    [Show full text]
  • CS and Pepper Spray and Taser Aftercare Guidance
    CS/PEPPER SPRAY OR TASER – GUIDANCE ON THE AFTERCARE OF PATIENTS DECEMBER 2014 This policy supersedes all previous guidance on the aftercare of patients where CS Spray or Pepper Spray or Taser have been used CS/PEPPER SPRAY OR TASER AFTERCARE GUIDANCE – CL02 – JANUARY 2015 Policy title CS/Pepper Spray or Taser – Guidance on the Aftercare of Patients Policy CL02 reference Policy category Clinical Relevant to All wards and Residential Services within the Trust Date published January 2015 Implementation January 2015 date Date last December 2014 reviewed Next review January 2017 date Policy lead Simon Africanus Rowe, Clinical and Corporate Policy Manager Contact details [email protected] Tel: 020 3317 6561 Accountable Claire Johnston, Director of Nursing and People director Approved by N/A (Group): Approved by Quality Committee (Committee): 20 January 2015 Document Date Version Summary of amendments history Sep 2005 1 Oct 2012 2 Pepper and Taser added No changes in national guidance. No incidents in the Dec 2014 3 Trust reported for Pepper Spray or Tasers since 2011. Benchmarked. Membership of Anthony Aubrey, Local Consultant Management Consultant the policy Acosia Nyanin, Associate Director, Governance and Quality Assurance development/ Craig Turton, Interim Clinical and Corporate Policy Manager review team Simon Africanus Rowe, Clinical and Corporate Policy Manager Consultation Medical Director, Director of Nursing, Deputy Directors of Nursing, Associate Divisional Directors, Divisional Clinical Leads, Matrons, Practice Development Nurses, Ward Managers, Team Leaders & Community Staff. Ward and Team Managers 2 CS/PEPPER SPRAY OR TASER AFTERCARE GUIDANCE – CL02 – JANUARY 2015 DO NOT AMEND THIS DOCUMENT Further copies of this document can be found on the Foundation Trust intranet.
    [Show full text]
  • Informe Acerca Del Uso De Gases Lacrimógenos Por Agentes Del Estado
    Informe acerca del uso de gases lacrimógenos por agentes del Estado Autores: Diego Encalada Diego Martínez Sebastián Estay Pablo Olguín Sebastián Estrada Luna Sánchez Paolo Fuentes Axell Tepper Javiera Leiva Mario Vargas María Ignacia Mandiola Valentina Villanueva Tutor: Dr. Aníbal Vivaceta Valparaíso, noviembre 2019 Índice 1. Índice. 2. Introducción. 3. Componentes y formas de presentación. 4. Aspectos legales. 5. Riesgos a la Salud. a. Toxicidad relativa innata del químico utilizado. i. Composición, farmacología y toxicidad. ii. Efectos adversos. iii. Efectos inmediatos. iv. Efectos respiratorios a mediano y largo plazo. v. Otros efectos. b. Capacidad del personal que lo utiliza para emitir una dosis medida, que se mantiene en niveles no dañinos y no letales. c. Toxicidad relativa y dosis de seguridad de cualquier medio de transporte, solvente o propelente, utilizado para dirigir el agente a los sujetos blanco de su uso. d. Seguridad ante explosiones e incendio de cualquier munición irritante dispersada pirotécnicamente. e. Profesionalismo y entrenamiento de todo el personal operativo para asegurarse de que tales dispositivos se usan de acuerdo con su preparación, código de conducta y según las instrucciones del fabricante. 6. Usos abusivos. 7. Antecedentes de utilización en situaciones especiales. a. Escuelas. b. Uso en grupos vulnerables. c. Hospitales. 8. ANEXOS. a. Anexo 1: Características de disuasivos químicos más usados. b. Anexo 2: Marco legal. i. Protocolo de uso de dispositivos químicos aplicados en Chile. ii. Regulación ambiental aplicable. iii. Jurisprudencia chilena. iv. Normativa internacional. 9. Bibliografía. Licencia Creative Commons Se autoriza (y estimula) su uso citando fuente, sin fines comerciales, y sin modificaciones 2. Introducción.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2019 / Issue No
    Humanising Talking Technology “Don’t let it be you” the headlines When is IT in prisons going to Living and coping with the National Newspaper for Prisoners & Detainees Prison film-maker tells what be taken seriously? Time depression. Don’t keep it to it was like filming in Durham. HMPPS entered 21st century. yourself, speak to someone. a voice for prisoners since Comment // page 24 Comment // page 27 Information // page 37 February 2019 / Issue No. 236 / www.insidetime.org / A ‘not for profit’ publication/ ISSN 1743-7342 ALSO IN THIS ISSUE Inside Scotland, your Valentine’s messages and Koestler entry form! An average of 60,000 copies distributed monthly Independently verified by the Audit Bureau of Circulations HIGH HOPES! Prisons Minister Rory Stewart (below) has reiterated his promise to resign if there are no significant improvements in lowering levels of violence and drugs in ten of the worst performing prisons in England and Wales by August PRISONS CRISIS l 2017-2018 almost 50,000 incidents of self-harm l 87 self-inflicted deaths l Record drug finds 23 l 30,000 assaults Credit: Greener Growth l 10,000 assaults on Greener prison grass staff © Paul Sullivan Founder of Community Interest Company (CIC) ‘Greener Growth’, Joannah Metcalf (above in HMP Highpoint), writes about the therapeutic effect of Inside Time report should be scrapped, except in virtually the pointlessness creating green and colourful spaces in neglected areas as she celebrates the crimes of sex or violence - al- and ineffectiveness of short beginning of her fifth year at HMP Wayland. though a Ministry of Justice prison sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • Xiv Congreso De La Sociedad Española Del Dolor Murcia, Del 1 Al 3 De Junio De 2017
    VOLUMEN 24, SUPLEMENTO 1 XIV CONGRESO DE LA SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DEL DOLOR MURCIA, DEL 1 AL 3 DE JUNIO DE 2017 Editorial Consideraciones éticas, legales y farmacológicas de los ensayos clínicos con analésicos en pediatría Congreso de la SED en Murcia, 2017 M. A. Peiré García 20 J. F. Mulero Cervantes 1 Medicina cannabinoide en el manejo del dolor crónico J. Pérez Martínez 22 Resúmenes de ponencias Dolor cefálico y facial: estimulación occipital periférica Tratamiento no farmacológico del dolor cefálico y facial M. D. Rodrigo Royo y P. Baltanás Rubio 26 M. P. Acín Lázaro, M. D. Rodrigo Royo y P. Baltanás Rubio 3 ¿Disponemos de herramientas eficaces para diagnosticar el dolor neuropático en pacientes con Polimorfismos opioides: ¿futuro o presente? dolor lumbar? A. Alonso Carda 5 M. T. Santeularia Verges, M. Melo Cruz, M. Revuelta Rizo y E. Català Puigbo 28 Cefalea cervicogénica. Radiofrecuencia del nervio occipital mayor Dolor neuropático localizado: un buen diagnóstico M. Bovaira 7 puede cambiar su pronóstico. Herramientas diagnósticas del dolor neuropático Consulta de enfermería en la Unidad del Dolor A. Serrano Afonso 31 R. Calleja Carbajosa, B. Hernández Sáez, C. Palacios Lobato y B. Pérez Benito 9 Formación en dolor: másteres y cursos de postgrado A. Vidal Marcos 32 Síndrome miofascial en la patología cervical. Esguince cervical crónico (late whiplash) Reputación digital: dolor y redes sociales G. Correa Illanes 12 A. Vidal Marcos 33 Comparación de resultados a largo plazo entre tratamientos tópicos y orales en el dolor neuropático Resúmenes de comunicaciones 37 localizado A. Navarro Siguero 15 Índice de autores 169 Imagen en el dolor lumbar L.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendations – Irritant Sprays: Clinical Effects and Management
    ARCHIVED FEBRUARY 2021 Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine Irritant sprays: clinical effects and management Recommendations for Healthcare Professionals (Forensic Physicians, Custody Nurses and Paramedics) Dec 2017 Review date Dec 2020 – check www.fflm.ac.uk for latest update The medico-legal guidelines and recommendations published by the Faculty are for general information only. Appropriate specific advice should be sought from your medical defence organisation or professional association. The Faculty has one or more senior representatives of the MDOs on its Board, but for the avoidance of doubt, endorsement of the medico-legal guidelines or recommendations published by the Faculty has not been sought from any of the medical defence organisations. Introduction CS & PAVA irritant spray effects and CS Irritant spray management Chemical name CS O-chlorbenzylidene Irritant (formerly known as ‘incapacitant sprays’) augment malonitrile, 5% solution the range of ‘less-lethal’ tactical options available to police Solvent Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK) officers confronted by potentially aggressive or violent individuals or those with acute behavioural disturbance. Propellant Nitrogen for hand held spray The terminology for CS and PAVA sprays used by police Formulation used Liquid Spray personnel was changed in the UK as the sprays are not CS is a solid at room temperature but is dissolved in an ‘incapacitants’ in the way that word is defined in the Chemical organic solvent to be used as a liquid aerosol. The solvent Weapon Convention; they are ‘Riot Control Agents’ (i.e. their evaporates leaving the CS particles to give their effects. effects can be reversed without medical intervention). The Home Office Centre for Applied Science and Technology PAVA Irritant spray recommended the adoption of the term ‘irritant’ rather than ‘incapacitant’ for police CS and PAVA Sprays.
    [Show full text]
  • Refining the Role of Less-Lethal Technologies: Critical Thinking, Communications, and Tactics Are Essential in Defusing Critical Incidents
    Refining the Role of Less-Lethal Technologies: Critical Thinking, Communications, and Tactics Are Essential in Defusing Critical Incidents Refining the Role of Less-Lethal Technologies: Critical Thinking, Communications, and Tactics Are Essential in Defusing Critical Incidents February 2020 The points of view expressed herein are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the opinions of all Police Executive Research Forum members. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, D.C. 20036 Copyright © 2020 by Police Executive Research Forum All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America ISBN 978-1-934485-55-2 Graphic design by Dave Williams. Contents Acknowledgments ................................... 1 Chapter 3: How Effective Are Less-Lethal Weapons? ................ 24 Introduction: Critical Thinking, What departments are saying Communications, and Tactics about ECW effectiveness............................................24 Can Reduce the Need Limitations of ECWs ...................................................25 for Less-Lethal Weapons .......................3 The Importance of Having a Plan ..............................26 Critical thinking and communication skills are key ...5 The UK Perspective on Less-Lethal Force Options ...28 Integrating Critical Thinking, Communications, Legal Considerations and Less-Lethal Options ..............................................6 Governing Less-Lethal Force Options .......................29 Executive Summary ................................8 Chapter 4: Looking Ahead: Taking Use-of-Force
    [Show full text]
  • Anxiety Disorder, Generalized
    From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Condition Petition for Thomas Rosenberger Date: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 5:12:55 PM Attachments: Question 2 GAD (3).pdf Question 5 GAD (2).pdf This message was sent from the Condition page on medicalmarijuana.ohio.gov. Box was check regarding file size being too large to upload. Action needed! Name: Thomas Rosenberger Address: 815 Grandview Ave Suite 400, Columbus, OH, 43215 Phone: (614) 706-3782 Email: [email protected] Specific Disease or Condition: Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) Information from experts who specialize in the disease or condition. File larger than 3MB Relevant medical or scientific evidence pertaining to the disease or condition. See Attached Question 2 GAD (3).pdf Consideration of whether conventional medical therapies are insufficient to treat or alleviate the disease or condition. File larger than 3MB Evidence supporting the use of medical marijuana to treat or alleviate the disease or condition, including journal articles, peer-reviewed studies, and other types of medical or scientific documentation. File larger than 3MB Letters of support provided by physicians with knowledge of the disease or condition. This may include a letter provided by the physician treating the petitioner, if applicable. See attached file Question 5 GAD (2).pdf Question 1 Information from experts who specialize in the disease or condition Contents Overview – 3 Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Prevalance, Burden, and Cost to Society - 4 Final Agency Decision: Petitions to Establish Additional Debilitating Medical Conditions Under the New Jersey Medicinal Marijuana Program – New Jersey Department of Health - 17 Overview General Anxiety Disorder (GAD) is a debilitating condition that has proven difficult to treat.
    [Show full text]